On 09/04/2015 10:06, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 04/09/2015 11:33 AM, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: >> On 08/04/2015 19:26, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:07:21 +0100 >>> Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Currently, the target/rules to build combined libraries is different >>>> than the one to build individual libraries. >>>> >>>> By removing the combined library option as a build configuration >>>> option >>>> we simplify the build pocess by having a single point for >>>> linking/archiving >>>> libraries in DPDK. >>>> >>>> This patch removes CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIB build config option >>>> and >>>> removes the makefiles associated with building a combined library. >>>> >>>> The CONFIG_RTE_LIBNAME config option is kept as it will be use to >>>> always generate a linker script that acts as a single combined >>>> library. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy >>>> <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com> >>> No. We use combined library and it greatly simplfies the application >>> linking process. >>> >> After all the opposition this patch had in v2, I did explain the >> current issues >> (see http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/015366.html ) and >> this was the agreed solution. >> >> As I mention in the cover letter (also see patch 2/5), building DPDK >> (after applying this patch series) will always generate a very simple >> linker script that behaves as a combined library. >> I encourage you to apply this patch series and try to build your app >> (which links against combined lib). >> Your app should build without problem unless I messed up somewhere >> and it needs fixing. > > Is it possible to generate a pkgconfig file (dpdk.pc) that contains > all of the setting needed to compile and link with dpdk? That will > greatly simplify usage. > > A linker script is just too esoteric. > > That sounds very interesting.
I would be in favor of dropping the linker script for this solution if everybody is happy with it. Sergio
